Kerr just said on a podcast he doesn't need to get fitter to run 3:42

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

The blueprint is Habz 3:27.49. That race had the elements this one likely will have:

a) smaller field
b) pacing until the last 400 or 500 at worst (Rudolf got to around 450 to go)
c) Kerr running a meter or two extra, not the extra 5-10m a typical DL racer does (Habz ran 1501m I recall)
d) even pacing including a less breakneck start and finish (13low-mid for these segments not 13-flat)
e) focus of the season (this backfired for Habz, but there're no Worlds for Kerr, and Comm Games is directly after).

While Kerr likely won't get as much "pacing" as in Paris, I'd say that's mitigated by the lack of rounds. He can gain around a second in my eyes from factors a, c, and d.

So to me if he's in close to Paris shape, I think he's likely to run in 3:43.5-3:44.5 range. But there's an outside shot to me of faster or the World Record with perfect conditions, execution, and pacing that gets all the way to at least 500 to go.

Here's Habz' race, he might've gotten .1-.2 also from having Koech come up on his shoulder and push him all the way to the line:

Make no mistake Josh Kerr is better than Habz in all aspects. But a lot of variables went Habz' way in this one, it is inarguable.

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcI_ftT2iIg

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

He needs to be in better shape than Paris. A 3.27.8 guy (3.27.79) can not run a 1500m in 3.28.2 en route and then close in 14.8 seconds for 109m which is 54.8 400m race.

I think we are forgetting that in all likelihood, a 3.43 low/sub 3.43.0 performer is a bonafide 3.26.X runner and I know people will point to Ngeny and say "well he was only 3.28.1" - well okay, he was within 2 tenths of that en route in that mile so I'm pretty certain his potential was much higher than that and more likely he was in 3.27.0 shape, possibly 3.26 high shape on July 7th, 1999.

A few other nuances to entertain.

1) Rounds at the Olympics, especially in the 1500, I think have little to no impact on the top guys. They are are all so fit for starters - I think a lot of them actually enjoy and use the rounds (especially the heat) to build momentum and sharpen for the final. Once you are in the final, any residual fatigue is totally evaporated by the circumstance, environment and incentive of becoming an Olympic champion. No matter what anyone says, you'll be up for any race like you are for a race at the Olympic Games and especially a final (full disclosure I don't know the latter part of that, but I can make a good estimate).

2) Sometimes being pushed too much isn't actually a positive. It's good to have and be aware of someones presence, but sometimes having someone right on your hammer forces you to actually react and fight to stay ahead of them vs maintaining a relaxed (as possible) focus under the immense stress you are under. Being "pushed" is good but it manifests in more than one way.

3) I hate to bring this up because you are right, Josh Kerr is better than Habz, but I don't know if Habz is a good person to use as a yardstick here because well, that performance wasn't just an outlier for his season, it was an outlier for him as an athlete and and such an outlier historically, that it is a highly suspicious mark. This is a guy that irrespective of his potential "peaking" issues, got bounced in the first round of the 1500m at the world champs in 3.36.6. Kerr and Hocker both ran indoors and GST and even though Kerr had his issues in the final of the 15, at least he made it and looked like he belonged as he does. So as much as Adezzine Habz may give hope to Josh Kerr, how does that look if potentially Habz had more than just a fortunate race scenario and execution going his way? He wouldn't be the first, or the last.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Baumann fan wrote:

I have been saying for almost 2 years now that the 3:27 Olympic 1500 final was worth a world record for Hocker, Kerr, Nuguse, and Jakob. That's a 3:24-3:25 on the Monaco track with great weather, wavelights, and a good rabbit.

Kerr speaks the truth. It's not a matter of whether he can do it. It's a matter of who gets there first.

Sigh, it's posts like these that for one reason or another, make this messageboard great.

Do you have any concept of what 1.66 seconds at this level of running is? It's about 10.5-11m of running? 3.24?! Go watch the Paris 1500m final and when they get into the home straight, stop the footage at 3.24.x and see just how far they are away from running 1500m. That is an absurd comment.

Kerr, because credit to him, positions himself impeccably almost all the time, won't get a better run than he did in that final. He was perfectly paced by both Jakob and TC (early on). Maybe not having to run the heat and semi helps his energy? I'd doubt that at this level of fitness, plus the incentive of an Olympic final is the leveler for any of those factors.

Nuguse also gets a perfect run. Sure he has to go a little wide on the final bend and pass Cheriuyot with 250 to go but he's probably going to have to do something similar in a "Monaco" race anyway. Was there any move in that race he made where you were like "oh that will hurt him"? Not a chance -in a race that fast it's hard to make those errors.

Hocker get's his optimal race too. Nicely off the pace at 400 and 800, on the pole - he even gets a great ride up into that box he was in with 120 to go. Yes if he gets by Jakob the first time he strides away more and may run 3.27.2 or 3 at the absolute best - but breaking 3.26.0? (under 3.25?!) - point out things in that race which he could have optimized more to get to 11-20m up the track more.

Jakob is the only guy that benefits from Monaco/WL/Rabbit here - because he did all the work in this race. But tbh the way he faded (and yes he ran a horrendous opening 200/400 knowing his strengths and weaknesses), I honestly don't know if best case he runs that much faster than he did in Monaco that season (3.26.73). Maybe he wins that race by just over half a second (4-4.5 meters perhaps) from Hocker with Kerr and Nuguse right there but it's more like 3.26.5 vs 3.27.2 vs 3.27.6 vs 3.27.7 - just simply saying "Monaco, wavelight and pacer = 1.7-2.0 seconds"?

What does "Kerr speaks the truth" mean? Of course he does - he speaks what is true to him, as we all do. A better measure is "what Kerr has said will happen has happened" and that's not the case. He was going to win the Olympic title and didn't. He was going to go to Zurich just after Paris and run under 3.27 and didn't - the same as London last year.

"It's not a matter of if he can do it"? That's exactly what it is. So in your opinion it is 100%, bonafide, locked in that Josh Kerr can break 3.43.13/3.43.0? The expectations "fans" of this sport have on the athletes is absolutely wild.

@# wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Sigh, it's posts like these that for one reason or another, make this messageboard great.

Do you have any concept of what 1.66 seconds at this level of running is? It's about 10.5-11m of running? 3.24?! Go watch the Paris 1500m final and when they get into the home straight, stop the footage at 3.24.x and see just how far they are away from running 1500m. That is an absurd comment.

Kerr, because credit to him, positions himself impeccably almost all the time, won't get a better run than he did in that final. He was perfectly paced by both Jakob and TC (early on). Maybe not having to run the heat and semi helps his energy? I'd doubt that at this level of fitness, plus the incentive of an Olympic final is the leveler for any of those factors.

Nuguse also gets a perfect run. Sure he has to go a little wide on the final bend and pass Cheriuyot with 250 to go but he's probably going to have to do something similar in a "Monaco" race anyway. Was there any move in that race he made where you were like "oh that will hurt him"? Not a chance -in a race that fast it's hard to make those errors.

Hocker get's his optimal race too. Nicely off the pace at 400 and 800, on the pole - he even gets a great ride up into that box he was in with 120 to go. Yes if he gets by Jakob the first time he strides away more and may run 3.27.2 or 3 at the absolute best - but breaking 3.26.0? (under 3.25?!) - point out things in that race which he could have optimized more to get to 11-20m up the track more.

Jakob is the only guy that benefits from Monaco/WL/Rabbit here - because he did all the work in this race. But tbh the way he faded (and yes he ran a horrendous opening 200/400 knowing his strengths and weaknesses), I honestly don't know if best case he runs that much faster than he did in Monaco that season (3.26.73). Maybe he wins that race by just over half a second (4-4.5 meters perhaps) from Hocker with Kerr and Nuguse right there but it's more like 3.26.5 vs 3.27.2 vs 3.27.6 vs 3.27.7 - just simply saying "Monaco, wavelight and pacer = 1.7-2.0 seconds"?

What does "Kerr speaks the truth" mean? Of course he does - he speaks what is true to him, as we all do. A better measure is "what Kerr has said will happen has happened" and that's not the case. He was going to win the Olympic title and didn't. He was going to go to Zurich just after Paris and run under 3.27 and didn't - the same as London last year.

"It's not a matter of if he can do it"? That's exactly what it is. So in your opinion it is 100%, bonafide, locked in that Josh Kerr can break 3.43.13/3.43.0? The expectations "fans" of this sport have on the athletes is absolutely wild.

That's what people said about Komen's 3000m record, that it was almost untouchable.

Till Jakob smashed it.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

He needs to be in better shape than Paris. A 3.27.8 guy (3.27.79) can not run a 1500m in 3.28.2 en route and then close in 14.8 seconds for 109m which is 54.8 400m race.

I think we are forgetting that in all likelihood, a 3.43 low/sub 3.43.0 performer is a bonafide 3.26.X runner and I know people will point to Ngeny and say "well he was only 3.28.1" - well okay, he was within 2 tenths of that en route in that mile so I'm pretty certain his potential was much higher than that and more likely he was in 3.27.0 shape, possibly 3.26 high shape on July 7th, 1999.

A few other nuances to entertain.

1) Rounds at the Olympics, especially in the 1500, I think have little to no impact on the top guys. They are are all so fit for starters - I think a lot of them actually enjoy and use the rounds (especially the heat) to build momentum and sharpen for the final. Once you are in the final, any residual fatigue is totally evaporated by the circumstance, environment and incentive of becoming an Olympic champion. No matter what anyone says, you'll be up for any race like you are for a race at the Olympic Games and especially a final (full disclosure I don't know the latter part of that, but I can make a good estimate).

2) Sometimes being pushed too much isn't actually a positive. It's good to have and be aware of someones presence, but sometimes having someone right on your hammer forces you to actually react and fight to stay ahead of them vs maintaining a relaxed (as possible) focus under the immense stress you are under. Being "pushed" is good but it manifests in more than one way.

3) I hate to bring this up because you are right, Josh Kerr is better than Habz, but I don't know if Habz is a good person to use as a yardstick here because well, that performance wasn't just an outlier for his season, it was an outlier for him as an athlete and and such an outlier historically, that it is a highly suspicious mark. This is a guy that irrespective of his potential "peaking" issues, got bounced in the first round of the 1500m at the world champs in 3.36.6. Kerr and Hocker both ran indoors and GST and even though Kerr had his issues in the final of the 15, at least he made it and looked like he belonged as he does. So as much as Adezzine Habz may give hope to Josh Kerr, how does that look if potentially Habz had more than just a fortunate race scenario and execution going his way? He wouldn't be the first, or the last.

#1 might be true to some degree. I think you are missing a key aspect of the Paris race. They kicked it in to run 3:27.8. Kerr ran 13.0 in the last 100 after a 13-low curve run on either the lane 2 line or outside of lane 1. This is not ideal. Jakob ran 3:26.7 and he didn’t lose just because he led but because these guys kicked off 3:28 pace (a thing he didn’t think was likely), even as he pushed Kerr wide and make Hocker stop-start.

The Habz race is more unique than you think, and in my eyes you’re understating why it is. This wasn’t a garden-variety DL race where Habz had to fight tooth and nail for position and sprint at the onset and the finish. It was a perfectly-tuned time trial for a B tier runner because Paris created a non-DL 1500 with A-level pacers and deferential competitors. There’s a reason that was a PR race for many competitors.

Kerr can tip the variables much like Paris/Habz did.

kiltedrunner wrote:

Alexi Santana wrote:

He was actually in lane 1 for almost the whole race - everything except the first and last 150. The pacing also wasn't that wacky and as others mentioned, took him all the way through 1400 - which he won't get anywhere else.
The component that matters is running the rounds. That's worth maybe - a second? Which does matter with these margins

Hmm nah I think you're misremembering- Kerr was lane 2 at the start with a choppy start/near trip with Komen yes, but then he had to run around Tim's sacrificial lamb Komen with 600m to go, and then drifts out again to take over Timmy C with about 300 to go. From that point he is lane 2/on the edge for essentially the remainder whilst he first struggles to get by Jakob and then remains in lane 2 to battle with Hocker. With all those it's more like 450-470m total in an overtaking position/lane 2, which is basically a third of the race and obviously not ideal. Battling to pass four different athletes in the final 600m is thankfully not a feature of a well organised time trial either; so you would like to think Kerr would benefit from only having pacers ahead of him in London, and not two tactical Kenyans who got in the way more than once and ended up DFL and one up from DFL.

Also, the Paris pacing wasn't that wacky?! Jakob was ahead of world record pace at 400 😆 Whilst Kerr didn't follow it quite as closely as Tim, he certainly kept a much shorter leash on it than Hocker did.

With all that (and as you point out, all the rounds) Paris was not an ideal time trial for Kerr by any means. Whilst he is clearly a racer, his indoor two mile world record shows that he can deliver a successful time trial when in shape so we shall see.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

#1 might be true to some degree. I think you are missing a key aspect of the Paris race. They kicked it in to run 3:27.8. Kerr ran 13.0 in the last 100 after a 13-low curve run on either the lane 2 line or outside of lane 1. This is not ideal. Jakob ran 3:26.7 and he didn’t lose just because he led but because these guys kicked off 3:28 pace (a thing he didn’t think was likely), even as he pushed Kerr wide and make Hocker stop-start.

The Habz race is more unique than you think, and in my eyes you’re understating why it is. This wasn’t a garden-variety DL race where Habz had to fight tooth and nail for position and sprint at the onset and the finish. It was a perfectly-tuned time trial for a B tier runner because Paris created a non-DL 1500 with A-level pacers and deferential competitors. There’s a reason that was a PR race for many competitors.

Kerr can tip the variables much like Paris/Habz did.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Fact_Checker wrote:

Saying Habs is a B-tier runner is confusing. He’s faster than the entire Olympic podium from 2024. That’s very good. Only guy faster than him currently is Jakob. Yes, he is far worse in global championships but this is a discussion on time trials right? Habs had an excellent peak in the earlier 2025 season and even the Indoor season where he placed behind Jakob at the European Indoor champs. Time-wise it was likely a better peak than any of those guys ever. Or are you saying the Kerr is more talented than Habs? Not really sure how you can prove that. I still think your conclusion is right though that Kerr probably runs 3:44.xx were he to get back to that Paris 2024 form.

Yes and I explained why I think that race was exceptional. I think there’s zero question Kerr is more talented and has achieved better fitness. But he’s reserved it for Championships. Time-wise Nuguse’s Pre Classic mile was a better peak in my eyes. B tier doesn’t mean to me some big step down but do I think the big 4 all can time trial faster than Habz if they’d gotten in the right race? Yes, I do. He is the one chasing a fast French record and perhaps (dumbly) not worrying about the impact on his peak a couple months later.